Transcript Ground Rules, exams, etc. (no “make up” exams) Text: read

Phylogenetics in Ecology
Phylogenetic Systematics = Cladistics
Shared derived characteristics (synapomorphies)
Monophyletic groups = Clades
Monophyletic, Polyphyletic, Paraphyletic
Sister groups, outgroups, rooting trees
Identify ancestral states — polarize character state changes
Vicariance Biogeography, Area Cladograms
Phylogeny and the Modern Comparative Method
Phylogenetically Independent Contrasts
Evolutionary Ecomorphology
Convergence (homoplasy)
Joint Evolution of Rates of Reproduction and Mortality
(Tinkle 1969)
Don Tinkle
Jennings
et al. 2003
Ophidiocephalus taeniatus
Ophidiocephalus
Pygopus
Lialis
Pygopus nigriceps
Fossil Pygopus
Lialis burtonis
22 myBP
Jennings
and Pianka
2004
Bryan Jennings
Community and Ecosystem Ecology
Macrodescriptors = Aggregate Variables
Trophic structure, food webs, connectance
rates of energy fixation and flow, ecological efficiency
Diversity, stability, relative importance curves,
guild structure, successional stages
Communities are not designed by natural selection
for smooth and efficient function, but are
composed of many antagonists (need to attempt to
understand them in terms of interactions
between individual organisms)
Systems Ecology
Compartmentation
Trophic Levels
Autotrophs = producers
Heterotrophs = consumers & decomposers
Primary carnivores = secondary consumers
Secondary carnivores = tertiary consumers
Trophic continuum
Horizontal versus vertical interactions
Within and between trophic levels
Guild Structure
Foliage gleaning insectivorous birds
Food Webs
Subwebs, sink vs. source food webs
Connectance
Compartment
Models
Biogeochemical Cycles
Guild Structure
Guild Structure
Food Webs
Bottom Line
Kirk Winemiller
Jacobian, Community Matrix
Jacobian, Community Matrix
Macrodescriptors = Aggregate Variables
Trophic structure, food webs, connectance
Rates of energy fixation and flow, ecological efficiency
Diversity, stability, relative importance curves
Guild structure, successional stages
Communities are not designed by natural selection for smooth and
efficient function, but are composed of many antagonists (we need
to attempt to understand them in terms of interactions between
individual organisms – predator-prey coevolution)
Systems Ecology, compartment models
Compartmentation, Number of trophic levels, trophic continuum
Autotrophs = producers
Heterotrophs = consumers & decomposers
Primary carnivores = secondary consumers
Secondary carnivores = tertiary consumers
Biogeochemical cycles
Horizontal versus vertical interactions (top-down, bottom-up)
Trophic cascades
Within and between trophic levels
Guild structure, foliage gleaning insectivorous birds
Food webs, subwebs, sink vs. source food webs, connectance
Energetic importance of decomposers
Ecological pyramids, pyramid of energy, inverted pyramids
Standing crops versus rates of energy flow, Li, lij
equations at equilibrium where dL dt = 0 for all i
Ecological efficiency l32 / l21 average about 5-10%
Gross productivity versus net productivity
Secondary succession
Horn’s transition matrix (a projection matrix)
Ecological Pyramids (numbers, biomass, and energy)
Pyramid of energy
Measures of standing crop versus rates of flow
Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics
The energy content of a trophic level at any instant (i.e., its
standing crop in energy) can be represented by capital
lambda, L, with a subscript to indicate the appropriate
trophic level: L1 = primary producers,
L2 = herbivores, L3 = primary carnivores, and so on.
Similarly, the rate of flow of energy between trophic levels
is designated by lower case lambdas, lij , where the i and j
subscripts indicate the two trophic levels involved with i
representing the level receiving and j the level losing energy.
Subscripts of zero denote the world external to the system;
subscripts of 1, 2, 3, and so on, indicate trophic level as
previously stated.
Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics
Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics
At equilibrium (dLi/dt = 0 for all i), energy flow in the system
portrayed in the figure may thus be represented by a set of
simple equations (with inputs on the left and rate of outflow to
the right of the equal signs):
l10 = l01 + l02 + l03 + l04
l10 = l21 + l01 + l41
l21 = l32 + l02 + l42
l32 = l03 + l43
l41 + l42 + l43 = l04
Energy Flow and Ecological Energetics
Gross Productivity
Gross annual production (GAP)
Net productivity
Net annual production (NAP)
Respiration in tropical rainforest 75-80% of GAP
Respiration in temperate forests 50-75% of GAP
In most other communities, it is 25-50 % of GAP
Only about 5-10% of plant food is harvested by animals
Remainder of NAP is consumed by decomposers
Secondary Succession
Transition Matrix for Institute Woods in Princeton
Henry Horn
_________________________________________________________________________
Canopy
Sapling Species (%)
Species
BTA GB SF BG SG WO OK HI TU RM BE
Total
__________________________________________________________________________
BT Aspen
3
5
9
6
6
2
4
2
60
3
104
Gray birch 47
12
8
2
8
0
3
17
3
837
Sassafras
3
1
10
3
6
3
10
12
37 15
68
Blackgum 1
1
3
20
9
1
7
6 10
25 17
80
Sweetgum 16
0 31
0
7
7
5
27
7
662
White Oak 6
7
4
10
7
3 14
32 17
71
Red Oak
2
11
7
6
8
8
8
33 17
266
Hickory
1
3
1
3 13
4
9 49 17
223
Tuliptree
2
4
4
11
7
9 29 34
81
Red Maple 13
10
9
2
8 19
3 13 23
489
Beech
2
1
1
1
1
8
6 80
405
__________________________________________________________________________
BTA in next generation = 0.03 BTA + 0.03 SF + 0.01 BG .
Grand Total = 3286
Distributions of Trees Observed in 4 Forests and Predicted Climax
____________________________________________________________________________________
Age (years) BTA
GB
SF
BG
SG
WO
OK
HI TU
RM
BE
____________________________________________________________________________________
25
65
150
350
Predicted
climax
0
26
-
49
6
-
2
0
0
-
0
0
2
7
45
1
6
3
18
0
5
-
0
0
0
3
3
12
22
-
0
1
0
0
0
4
0
14
20
6
70
1
1
0
2
76
4
2
4
6
6
10
63
____________________________________________________________________________________
Data from the
Institute Woods in Princeton (Horn 1975)
Henry Horn